Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: C-17 as a stand-off cruise missile platform,
HeavyD    6/16/2012 4:19:44 PM
With increasing capabilities for stealth, accuracy and mission flexibility (from bunker-busters to cluster-bomblets, even anti-ship) plus 0 kia/mia/pow risk the Cruise Missile will increasingly be our response to situations like Lybia, and potentially Syria and Iran. Given 500+ km stand-off ranges and pre-programmed targeting info the platform for air launched cruise missiles clearly doesn't require the same type of tactical capabilities as the B-1 or B-2, or even the B-52. what is the feasibility of a 'pod' of 12 missiles (8-9 feet wide, 6-7 feet tall, 20 feet long), weighing 18 tons that could be deployed out the back of a C-17 (or any other cargo craft). The pod would deploy chutes to retard the decent and stabilize the pod while the cruise missiles were boosted out and then proceeded to target. Why? Capacity for one - just 50 near-simultaneous C-17 sorties, each deploying 3-4 such pods could put 1800 cruise missiles on target, clearly overwhelming any current defense capabilities. Cost for another. The cost of maintaining a Cruise Missile Ohio is astronomical for a 176 missile capacity. Ease and concealment of deployment for a third: If the pods were disguised as standard shipping containers they could easily be pre-positioned. Ditto the C-17s. We can deploy and support C-17s from far more air bases than B-52s. A DOZEN C-17s in our Gulf-area bases would not arouse much suspicion from the Iranians, but a dozen B-52s would have them on high alert. Cost: I am assuming that the cost per flight hour fir a C-17 is substantially less than for a B-52 or a B-1. THE FINAL FANTASY: Let's say we decided to pull North Korea or IRan's teeth: We could rain 5000 cruise missiles in the first hour and 1000 per hour after that with the combined capacity of C-17, B-52 and B-1s.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
giblets       6/18/2012 4:57:24 AM
Not quite as easy as plonking them on a C-17, you also need all the mission specialists. Part of the advantage of the B-52 is the deterrent of it, and the fact that it can fly in from places like Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, without needing refueling etc.
Currently the USAF do not have a shortage of tactical bombers, so there is no need to convert them, however, there was some talk of the RAF investigating this!
 
Quote    Reply

LB       6/18/2012 3:32:44 PM
Firstly the number of USAF of conventional cruise missiles the USAF maintains is very low.    Actually it's surprisingly low, maybe as many as a few hundred.   They don't need another aircraft to carry them.  If they did  it's questionable you want to launch 600nm range missiles from transports.
 
Almost all the cruise missiles maintained by the US are USN Tomahawk's of which there are roughly 3,500 within inventory.  A cruise missile is a rather expensive method ( $1+  million) of delivering a 1,000lb warhead.  They're quite useful the first day of a campaign to help knock down air defenses but afterwards you can drop relatively cheap 2,000lb JDAM's from aircraft all day long.
 
In any case the US doesn't have 5,000 conventional cruise missiles and in fact I think the number is below 4,000.
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       6/18/2012 7:41:57 PM
1.    $1mm to deliver 1000 lb warheads is a bargain compared to how much it costs to deliver 1000 JDAMs from carrier-borne aircraft:  I'd be surprised if the all-in cost of carrier-based ordnance isn't some multiple of $2mm/ton...carrier, supporting ships, crew, aircrew, aircraft, pilot training, maintenance...and upkeep during peacetime. 
 
2.  I GUARANTEE that $2mm/ton is less than it costs to maintain the B-1 or B2 fleets, although they have other missions they can fulfill - especially if we're talking targets 1000 miles + inland. 
 
 
3.  Range?  That's an easy fix, if required:  Let's look at Syria and Iran:  Most targets are within 200 miles of the coast, leaving 400 miles for stand-off.  Extended range is an easy requirement to meet with subsequent cruise missiles.
 
In fact I could see a larger Kamakazi cruise missile that could be configured with MIRV-like multiple conventional warheads (small diameter bomb for example, for taking out aircraft in shelters:  4 SBDs + a1000 lb warhead, runway cratering bomblets, or a 2000 lb warhead.
 
 
4.  Current numbers?  Of course we'd need to boost production to meet this scenario.
 
The navy would get it's knickers in a knot though...but they also could deliver mass salvos of cruise missiles more efficiently:  a single container ship of sorts could have 3200 ready-to-launch cruise missiles:  8x8x20' container holds 16 missiles.  200' of deck = 25 per row, per side.  stacked 4 high =  100 containers per side, 200 total x 16 = 3200!   Imagine how many an assault-carrier sized ship could hold?  400 feet x 40 feet high = 250 containers, 4000 cruise missiles per side, 8000 total.   
 
 
 
 
5.  We still have the advantage of keeping out of harm's way.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       6/19/2012 10:54:04 AM
The US has been using conventional cruise missiles in combat for more than 20 years in various conflicts.  If cruise missiles were as remotely useful as you seem to believe the USAF would have thousands or tens of thousands.  What they in fact have is a few hundred.
 
The notion that it costs $2 million to deliver a ton of munitions from an aircraft is absurd.  The typical cost per flight hour for modern fighters is $20K to $40K depending on various factors.  A $100,000,000 million fighter good for 8,000 hours is $12.5K of this total cost.  So comparing a 600nm range $1 million cruise missile with a 4 hour fighter mission carrying 4 2,000lb JDAM's indicates you need $8 million of missiles to compare to roughly $120,000.  It's really closer to $12 million btw.
 
This of course leaves out the reality that cruise missiles are not the proper weapon for a whole range of targets.  Sometimes one does in fact require penetrating bombs and/or larger warheads.
 
As for your "GUARANTEE" that delivering a ton of munitions costs more than $2 million for the B-1 exactly what does guarantee mean when you are factually wrong by over an order of magnitude?  
 
There are many ways to measure cost per flight hour.  The largest number you'll get for USAF aircraft is to use AFTOC (it's a measure of total ownership cost) which indicates the B-1 costs roughly $60K per flight hour.  So if it carries about 20 tons, half it's full load, for 10 hours, that's ballpark $600K or $30K a ton plus the cost of the munition.
 
BTW I said $1+ million per cruise missile.  It's ballpark $1.5 million today.  That doesn't include any costs except initial procurement.  
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       6/19/2012 11:16:43 PM
All-in naval aviation costs include: - pilot training and costs - air crew training and costs - aircraft costs: purchase & maint. - aircraft carrier costs - carrier crew training, payroll, benefits, family benefits, lifetime retirement and medical costs, etc. - supporting ships and subs, crews, etc. - shore-based bases and support infrastructure, etc. Clearly carrier battle groups don't exist solely to drop bombs, but under no fantasy scenario can you just say that F/A-18s are just gas and go for a few thou cost per hour... I'm also not sayin that all missions can be accomplished by cruise missiles, but in the future more and more can, more cost-effectively
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       6/20/2012 6:21:13 AM
All-in naval aviation costs include: - pilot training and costs - air crew training and costs - aircraft costs: purchase & maint. - aircraft carrier costs - carrier crew training, payroll, benefits, family benefits, lifetime retirement and medical costs, etc. - supporting ships and subs, crews, etc. - shore-based bases and support infrastructure, etc. Clearly carrier battle groups don't exist solely to drop bombs, but under no fantasy scenario can you just say that F/A-18s are just gas and go for a few thou cost per hour... I'm also not sayin that all missions can be accomplished by cruise missiles, but in the future more and more can, more cost-effectively
HeavyD,
Unless those missile ships are going to go out naked you cannot include the cost of ‘supporting ships and subs, crews, etc.’, ‘and shore-based bases and support infrastructure, etc.’ only on the carrier side. Your converted cargo ships will need those escorts and infrastructure even more so because they are so slow and defenseless.
 
Quote    Reply

LB       6/20/2012 2:02:05 PM
The problem is that every cost you're listing is quantifiable.  The total ownership cost for a Nimitz carrier is ballpark $32 billion over 50 years in FY04 dollars of which roughly half of this amount is personnel costs.  The Ford class with 800 fewer personnel will be cheaper at $25 billion.  Let's go with the Nimitz cost to get to .64 billion a year or 1.753 million a day.  Hell let's double that to count for the rest of the battle group and every other little thing one might think of and make it 3.5 million a day. 
 
Now assume a carrier averages 50 sorties a day, they can do triple that daily, and each sortie costs ballpark $70,000 plus the aircraft cost which for a 4 hour mission, as listed above in a prior post, is roughly 120,000.  So very rough ballpark estimate of $200,000 for a carrier aircraft to fly 4 hours and drop say 4 tons of bombs.  That's $50,000 a ton plus the cost of the munition.
 
A cruise missile costing around $1.5 million delivers 1/2 a ton over roughly 600nm.  We don't even have to add in the cost of maintaining, upgrading, storing, deploying, and delivering said cruise missile because we're already more than an order of magnitude higher in cost than delivering munitions by aircraft.  It's not even remotely close.
 
Quote    Reply

myhandlewontfi    hmmm   8/18/2013 5:15:32 PM

why should anyone want to fire 8000 cruise missiles at a single target or cluster of targets if they cost 1000000 each= 8 billion dollars or so.
 
carriers dont just have the costs right now, they probably also have to be maintained over their entire lifespan, unless you use them a lot maybe a few cruisemissiles on a frigate is cheaper.
 
if it is not rude to say it though i think the USA uses them alot
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics